The areas with the highest underground temperatures and geothermal potential are regions with geologically young or active volcanoes; for example, the Pacific Rim also called the Ring of Fire, which includes hot-spots in Japan, the US, Chile, Mexico. In non-volcanic areas, there is also a stable supply of slightly less heat at depths of anywhere from 10 to hundreds of meters below the surface.

Geothermal springs can be used directly for heating purposes or indirectly for electricity generation. For instance, geothermal hot water is used to bathing, heat buildings, de-ice roads etc.; while geothermal power plants use steam to generate electricity. Basically, geothermal plants pull hot water and steam from the ground; the steam rotates a turbine that activates a generator, which finally produces electricity.

Currently, many regions in the world are already choosing geothermal power as energy source to diversify their energy matrix and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. According to the Geothermal Energy Association, the operating capacity for geothermal power generation worldwide grew from 10,715 MW to 13,300 MW, in 2015. In El Salvador and Iceland geothermal plants already account for more than 25 percent of electricity produced; in fact, in 2014, 66 percent of primary energy use in Iceland came from geothermal.

Heating up Geothermal Energy in Mexico

Latin America has an enormous geothermal potential, close to 15 percent of the world’s total geothermal capacity. Mexico leads the region’s list, as it is the fourth geothermal energy producer in the world, after the US, the Philippines and Indonesia. According to the National Inventory of Renewable Energies, Mexico has a total installed geothermal capacity of 926 MW today, but this only makes up 6.9 percent of its overall potential. There is thus much room for improvement! Mexico’s geothermal power capacity is expected to rise due to a new regulatory framework, the foundation of a national geothermal innovation center, and the announcement of the country’s first private geothermal dealership and a joint EUR-20-million geothermal research project.

What has changed? In 2013, the Mexican Congress approved important constitutional modifications for an energy reform that ended the state monopoly on oil and gas production and power generation in general. In 2014, a number of important pieces of legislation were approved to operationalize the constitutional energy reform. One of these legislations, passed on August 2014, was the new Ley de Energía Geotérmica (Geothermal Energy Law). The Geothermal Law allows exploration and exploitation of new geothermal areas in Mexico, not only by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE for its Spanish acronym) but also by private companies. In essence, the new law defines the process for application and authorization, permits, and concessions for all stages of geothermal extraction in the country (i.e. reconnaissance, exploration and exploitation).

With the new laws in place, the country’s first Wholesale Electricity Market (MEM by its Spanish acronym) began in January 2016. The MEM will host short-term transactions as well as medium to long-term contracts. Long-term contracts (long-term capacity and clean energy contracts (15 years) and Clean Energy Certificates (20- year contract)) can either be bilateral among market participants or can be awarded through auctions. During the first long-term auction in March, geothermal was largely absent. Instead, 11 proposals were selected, of which seven to wind farms and four to solar projects. However, later in September 2016, during the second long-term auction, 25 MW-year capacity was awarded to CFE’s geothermal power plan called Los Azufres III, Phase II, expected to start operations in 2018. This auction was the first time in which CFE acted as a commercial company, presenting the purchasing offer at competitive prices.

Equally important, in 2014, the Mexican federal government launched the Mexican Center for Innovation in Geothermal Energy (CEMIE-Geo for its Spanish acronym). CEMIE-Geo is an academic-industry alliance supported by the Mexican Secretary of Energy (SENER by its Spanish acronym) and the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT by its Spanish acronym) aimed at promoting and accelerating the use and development of geothermal energy in Mexico. Today, CEMIE-Geo carries a portfolio of more than 30 research projects on technologies, innovation, direct use and evaluation of the country’s geothermal potential.

Finally, on November 19th, Mexico and the European Union launched a joint EUR-20-million geothermal research project, designed to develop and implement new geothermal technologies; as the most recent effort to rise the geothermal energy potential in Mexico.

Although it is true that geothermal plants are more sustainable than fossil fuel extraction and burning, there are considerable negative effects of their operation, which must be also considered as part of an integral geothermal policy in Mexico. First, policy makers need to consider the negative impacts that geothermal has on water resources, due to the amount of continuous water supply needed to produce steam (between 1,7000 and 4,000 gallons of water per MWh). Another environmental challenge which policy makers need to take into consideration are the associated hazardous chemicals that are emitted in geothermal plants, such as hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, ammonia and mercury. Finally, the issue of induced earthquakes must be addressed when selecting and promoting adequate geothermal technologies and locations, since these can occur by enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs) or “hot dry rock” technique (hot rock reservoirs are first broken up by pumping high-pressure water through them, the plants then pump more water through the broken hot rocks, where it heats up, returns to the surface as steam, and powers turbines/generators to produce electricity).

In conclusion, if Mexico wants to be a leader in the production of geothermal energy, it must heat up its potential, at the same time that it must protect from and avoid the negative impacts of this renewable energy.

Lillian Sol Cueva is a Mexican citizen and holds a degree in International Relations from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a master’s degree in Humanitarian Action from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her professional experience includes work in public policy, human and womens rights, sustainable development, energy and climate change. She has gained professional experience as a researcher, project coordinator, volunteer and public official in several national and international NGOs, as well as the Mexican government.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/12/is-the-mexican-geothermal-potential-freezing/feed/1Canada’s first 100% renewable energy community projecthttp://energytransition.de/2016/12/canadas-first-100-renewable-energy-community-project/
http://energytransition.de/2016/12/canadas-first-100-renewable-energy-community-project/#commentsWed, 07 Dec 2016 13:00:24 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11789Continue reading →]]>Oxford County, Ontario, has just opened a wind farm as part of a project to go 100% renewables for electricity and heat. Craig Morris visited the project, which could become a role model for the entire country.

Oxford County is set to become Canada’s first 100% renewable energy community. (Photo: Craig Morris)

“You are doing something special,” José Etcheverry tells a group of locals at an informal town hall meeting in Woodstock, the regional seat of Oxford County. “Yours is the first 100% renewable community project east of Vancouver,” he says with a smile. It’s a polite way of saying this is the only such project in the country.

Professor Etcheverry’s class from York University visiting Oxford County. They are standing in front of a PV tracking unit, with two turbines from the wind farm in the background. The students came from more than a dozen different countries.

At the same time, the county will not ban fossil fuels. Instead, consumption would be offset by renewable energy production to produce net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

A professor of environmental studies at York University, Etcheverry helped get the Oxford County project moving, as the website Smart Energy Oxford acknowledges. Now, he wants to make sure as many Canadians as possible hear about it. But it’s an uphill battle. “When the wind farm was inaugurated recently, no one from the media was here,” says Kris Stevens, an energy consultant and former head of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA).

On the day I visited, Professor Etcheverry had asked me to tag along on a field trip with one of his classes. Our first stop was at a biogas plant. “We are sourcing biogas from local farms,” explained an engineer next to a biogas filling station. Next to him stood his company’s pickup truck containing a large gas tank in the bed. “The next part of the project is a 6 km pipeline to transport the gas to here from a facility where the gas is collected from farms,” he explained.

During lunch, David Mayberry, Mayor of the Township of South-West Oxford, sits with me and two of Etcheverry’s students from Iran. “You should consider staying here,” he tells the young ladies, “we need more young, smart people like you.” It’s a common theme in small towns: how can we keep our own young people in town and attract young professionals from the big city?

Later, Mayberry picks me up in county seat of Woodstock in his two-seater electric Smart. “The range is quite limited at around 80 km,” he tells me, “but actually, it takes me everywhere I need to go. Only rarely do I have to worry about charging for the return trip home.” Still, few other electric cars are on the road; giant pickups dominate the landscape – probably few of them running on biogas. And Woodstock is a typical American town; it is hard to get around without a car.

Wind farm to halt sprawl

On our visit to the local community wind farm – the centerpiece of the project – we pass by a number of homes from which several turbines are clearly visible. I asked Miranda Fuller, Program Director of Future Oxford, how those residents feel about the visual impact. Opposition to wind farms is quite fierce in Ontario, largely because so few of the projects are driven by locals. In fact, when I was on the Ontario TV show The Agenda, the moderator Steve Paikin specifically asked me what to do about popular rejection of wind farms.

“There was quite a discussion about the wind farm when the project was proposed,” Fuller answered, “but now that the turbines are up and running and everyone can see what they are actually like, the debate has died down considerably.”

Interestingly, she also explained that the farmers themselves were interested in hosting the turbines in order to protect their farmland: “Because of the wind farm, this land will definitely remain farmland for the next two decades.” The farmers thus used the project to protect themselves from developers – and “Woodstock is now closed off on this side from further sprawl because of the wind farm.” Meanwhile, farming continues unabated between the turbines.

Etcheverry now wants to create a network of cycling paths through the wind farm. “It would be a great idea to get people to spend their free time out here right below the turbines so they can experience them firsthand,” he recommends.

Most of all, Canadians themselves need to be told about this bottom-up success story. To that end, it would be good if the project would publish its own statistics annually showing what the costs and benefits have been. Rural communities in North America are falling behind. Oxford County just might set an example for others to follow.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/12/canadas-first-100-renewable-energy-community-project/feed/4A tsunami in winter: Europe shakes up its energy policyhttp://energytransition.de/2016/12/a-tsunami-in-winter-europe-shakes-up-its-energy-policy/
http://energytransition.de/2016/12/a-tsunami-in-winter-europe-shakes-up-its-energy-policy/#respondMon, 05 Dec 2016 13:50:42 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11804Continue reading →]]>Temperatures are falling in Europe, and warm thoughts are doing little to help – let alone the European Commission’s proposed legislation. After a long gestation period, the “winter package,” also known as the “jumbo package” and the “tsunami of legislation” has now been unleashed in the framework of the Energy Union. The package of proposed legislation with the promising title Clean Energy for All Europeans stretches to more than one thousand pages. But does the package deliver on its promises?

The EU’s winter package: can it be sensible, coherent, and ambitious? (Public Domain)

Some aspects are already well-known and will be updated and adjusted in line with legislation to 2030, including revision of the directives on renewable energy and energy efficiency. At the same time, the Commission is taking a major step by proposing EU-wide restructuring and governance to complete the internal energy market. And finally the revisions also have to be adapted to existing agreements, particularly the target of limiting global warming to below 2°C that was set at the Paris Climate Conference and that came into force on 4 November 2016.

In reality, the lion that was preparing to pounce will turn into a lamb if, with the aid of capacity mechanisms, the door is opened wide to the construction of new coal-fired power stations (despite restrictions on CO2 emissions). The lion will also become toothless if the target for energy efficiency savings is only raised to 30% (from 27%) – despite repeated assertions of the principle of “Efficiency First!”. And the EU will become totally powerless if it pares back the “priority dispatch” system, which gives renewables priority in Europe’s energy grids. The unambitious target of “at least 27% renewables” in total energy consumption by 2030 will be weakened still further if these targets are only EU-wide, i.e. are no longer binding targets for individual Member States, as was the case with the 2020 targets. How is the EU to achieve President Juncker’s goal of becoming the world number one in renewable energies? For a long time now, the US and China have been one step ahead in terms of investment. The EU now has to work much harder to turn its fine words into actions.

But there is light at the end of the tunnel – for the first time, explicit mention has been made of energy cooperatives and their access to the grids. The EU has finally recognised the potential of citizens who produce and trade their own energy. The overall vision of the Energy Union has also clearly set its sights on a low-carbon, sustainable and secure energy system for Europe. Even the harshest of EU sceptics must understand that this cannot happen overnight. So it is all the more important to prevent these proposals being watered down in subsequent negotiations with the European Parliament and finally the Member States. It is the latter who have to set the final course towards a successful energy transition in Europe by supporting local and regional initiatives that also actively involve their European neighbours. In this respect, “Clean Energy For All Europeans” is only one part of the package. Now it remains to be seen which EU Member States will take positive steps towards achieving clean energy.

The proposals from Brussels highlight the fact that European policies on renewables currently have no ambitious common denominator that can be agreed by all Member States. Instead, Member States are all pursuing their own, purely domestic, energy interests – from coal in Poland to nuclear in France. So how can the EU set out an energy policy that is sensible, coherent – and ambitious?

In the past, pioneers of the energy transition such as Germany have failed to convince their European neighbours of the positive aspects of restructuring the energy system through innovation and economic growth. So far it has not been possible to build a coalition for a European energy transition, and now people are surprised at the very mixed result that has come out of Brussels. We could go so far as to say that the way Germany has gone it alone in energy policy and the concomitant – not always positive – effects on the electricity markets of our immediate neighbours is one of the main reasons for the EU’s unambitious proposals on energy.

If in the next two years Germany wants to have a meaningful impact on the process of relevant EU directives, then Berlin should not be focusing on fragmented quarrels about issues of priority for renewables or capacity mechanisms. Instead it should take a step back and work closely with other EU Member States – including discussion of their concerns – to produce a new narrative for a common European energy transition with a focus on the advantages of modernising the economy for international competitiveness. Only then can the energy transition be successful in both Germany and Europe.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/12/a-tsunami-in-winter-europe-shakes-up-its-energy-policy/feed/0Four German states already planning divestment. Saxony-Anhalt and Bremen could follow soon.http://energytransition.de/2016/11/four-german-states-already-planning-divestment-saxony-anhalt-and-bremen-could-follow-soon/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/four-german-states-already-planning-divestment-saxony-anhalt-and-bremen-could-follow-soon/#respondWed, 30 Nov 2016 13:00:15 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11297Continue reading →]]>Tine Langkamp describes the German wing of the international divestment movement: which states plan to divest and what their approach to divestment looks like. It also shows where the gaps are and what still needs to be done to achieve success.

After three years of divestment campaigning in Germany we’ve seen remarkable growth of the movement and some strong wins. The cities Münster and Stuttgart have been the first cities to divest and ditch fossil fuels from their pension funds. The Protestant Church Hessen-Nassau was the first religious institution to follow our call for divestment. The pension fund for the press decided to divest from coal. We have over 24 local Fossil Free campaigns who keep bringing climate change and the need to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground on the political agenda. The German fossil fuel divestment movement has been pushing the public debate and built powerful partnerships. And this is why divestment has reached entire federal states, one of them being Berlin. This is a huge success.

Words on paper must now become decisive action.

First to act was North Rhine Westphalia with a ruling in the state parliament in January 2016. Baden Württemberg followed in May (governing coalition contract), Berlin in July (city parliament ruling) and lastly Rheinland-Pfalz in September (state parliament ruling). The divestment movement can celebrate these successes due to an ever-increasing public pressure fired by creative and courageous fossil free groups, as well as the strategic and forward-looking actions of some state politicians.

The exact wording of the parliamentary rulings, however, is extremely variable. How rigorously the new investment guidelines are applied will only become apparent in the next months. Will all five states actually end all investment in coal, oil and gas? Or will there still be loopholes left for investment in fossil fuels? Will only the pension funds become climate-friendly or will the decisions also affect business holdings and loans? The following text will give you more information about the divestment policies of both the individual states and of the central German government.

NorthRhine-Westphalia: According to an investigation by correctiv.org, NRW has 81 million euros in climate-damaging investments, putting it in second place under the states. Following the ruling in the state parliament in January 2016, the next step is the exact formulation of new “sustainable, climate-friendly and socially responsible” investment criteria for the pension funds of its public servants and judges. This should come into effect by 2018. The pension schemes will be unified into a new pension fund worth 10.3 billion euros.

Baden-Württemberg is (still) the state in first place for its climate-killing investments. The two pension funds, covering the pensions of its public servants, invest at least 190 million euros in businesses earning their money with coal, oil and gas. In August 2016, however, the state ministry of finance announced that both funds, together totalling 5.3 billion euros, would withdraw their investments from fossil fuel. Baden-Württemberg also stressed in their coalition contract from May of 2016 both their wish for a “divestment-strategy” for the state bank of Baden-Württemberg as well as a “Corporate Government Codex” for state investment.

Berlin: Fossil Free Berlin fought hard for the divestment ruling adopted in July 2016. This success shows the group’s staying power. All five parties in the city parliament voted to withdraw public monies from organisations “whose business model contradicts the aim of climate neutrality”. In Berlin the decision affects the state pension funds valued at around 750 million euros. According to the Berlin senate, 78 million euros of these funds are invested in stocks and include, among others, shares in RWE, E.ON and Total. A financial consultant should develop and implement the new investment guidelines by 1/1/2017.

Rheinland-Pfalz: At the beginning of September 2016 a motion put forward by the Green Party set the divestment ball rolling. According to the Allgemeinen newspaper, the 5.29 billion euros in the state pension funds consist primarily of debts plus a small amount of cash. A divestment ruling would then in this case only become relevant in the future, preventing any new investment in coal, oil or gas and ensuring an ethical and ecological investment policy. But also here, the new investment criteria must first be formulated. It remains to be seen how stringent or lax they become and whether climate-killing investments will be consistently excluded.

For these states, divestment is still in the future

Saxony-Anhalt: according to the Correctiv investigation, the state invests about 16 million euros in climate-damaging firms like Total and BP or the Australian mining giant Rio Tinto. An inquiry by the Left party on the 15th of August 2016 shed more light on the confused investment politics. A debate on the theme of divestment was initiated but, up to now, profit has proved far more important for the state than any ethical or ecological considerations.

Even following the widely circulated Correctiv investigation the state parliament responded to the Left’s inquiry with a refusal to consider stronger divestment criteria. The state president Reiner Haseloff from the Christian Democrats apparently wants to reconsider the state’s investments, but before it could even come to a binding divestment ruling, several hurdles and opposition within the party would have to be overcome. In the democratic process the next steps would need to be: an examination by the ministry of finance of the current investment strategy, followed by a discussion of the topic in the state parliament’s capital market committee. It won’t be until the spring of 2017 that the financial market committee will be able to start thinking about divestment.

Bremen: the Fossil Free Bremen group is doing everything in its power to enable divestment in their state. They want climate-damaging investments to become a thing of the past as soon as possible. They have now achieved a remarkable partial success: just a few days ago (on the 24th of September 2016), the Green party adopted a divestment policy at their state conference. Fossil Free Bremen has now found an ally for its demands. A divestment motion could possibly even be put forward this year in the state parliament.

And what is happening on the federal level?

Not a lot. Since 2007, 10 percent of the federal pension funds have been invested in Eurostoxx 50, and in 2008 the funds of the Employment Ministry were added. Eurostoxx 50 includes, with Total, Repsol and ENI, three corporations whose profits primarily come from fossil fuels. According to a inquiry by the Green party and analysts from the Carbon Disclosure Project, this means that national government invests around 112 million euros in fossil fuel. That is absolutely incompatible with the aims of the Paris climate agreement. For this reason we demand further divestment and the fastest possible adoption of rigorous climate-friendly investment criteria.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/four-german-states-already-planning-divestment-saxony-anhalt-and-bremen-could-follow-soon/feed/0The arc of history still bends towards justicehttp://energytransition.de/2016/11/11451/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/11451/#respondMon, 28 Nov 2016 13:00:04 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11451Continue reading →]]>Mark Stevenson introduces a progressive movement everyone can sign up to: the energy democracy. It won’t happen overnight, and it won’t happen by itself: we will need to fight for it. But it can be done, as international examples show.

The city of Güssing, Austria has transitioned to renewables and seen huge economic benefits (Photo by Bwag, edited, CC BY-SA 3.0 AT)

Given my job as a futurologist a lot of fearful, liberally minded types have been asking me what I think about the future in light of the new US president-elect. The world, some of them believe, is over. That’s it. The most powerful nation on Earth has chosen a childlike, racist and sexist bigot for its highest office. One parent I know was so worried he told his children (much to his wife’s and their dismay) that there was definitely going to be a nuclear war. There is confusion and disbelief that millions of Americans could vote for such a candidate. Even the Republican party didn’t believe he could win.

First they ask me how it’s possible — and I agree with the prevailing analysis that democracy as currently practiced has failed many of its citizens terribly (something I explore in more detail in this post), so much so that 42% of US population eligible to vote couldn’t be bothered to do so. Interestingly, of those that did vote for Trump, many agree that he’s an odious and unpalatable choice, but one that would at least send a signal that they were fed up with the current moribund two-party system. Exit polls reported in the Washington Post reveal show that ‘Less than 4 in 10 voters (38 percent) had a favourable opinion of [Trump]. Only 1 in 3 said he was “honest and trustworthy.”

If the democracy you live in can’t save you from the injustices of inequality, if its regulators are lame ducks, if it can’t find ways to punish those who criminally mismanage the financial system and if the media (supposedly one of the institutions that holds everyone to account) peddles partisan untruths at you with depressing regularity — and this all happens no matter who is in power — why vote for the usual suspects, or at all?

What Trump and Farage, and the other so-called ‘populists’ have realised is that democracy as practised has not empowered a great many people, it has brutalised them, by offering them a facsimile of representation: two choices once every four or five years who will both ignore them. This offers up a section of the electorate the demagogues can turn to their aims with promises they will no longer be ignored. “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” said Trump in his victory speech.

When my liberal friends say ‘they’re all racists’ or ‘they’re all sexists’ I ask them what the breeding ground for prejudice is — and it’s generally agreed that it’s this: lack of access to prosperity, travel, a decent education, social mobility and so on. Mark Twain’s maxim that ‘travel is fatal to prejudice’ holds true, but if economic forces wipe out the jobs in your town and your government does next to nothing to help you transition to a new model of prosperity then your ability to travel — physically, emotionally, intellectually — is deeply hampered. Our elected leaders have singularly failed to address the problem of inequality and now we are all reaping the dividend — a huge structural divide in society.

So, what do we do? Well, there is a way out of this. And it’s not something that Trump can stop, or Farage can stop, or Sanders can stop, or Corbyn can stop.

When you change the cost of, and access to energy you change nearly everything about economics and politics. A democratised and cheap energy system allows poor communities to invest in the very things that their governments haven’t — jobs, schools, hospitals, opportunity. I know because I’ve seen it, witnessing the story of Güssing, Austria. A small rural community of 4,000 souls left to wither on the vine economically, 20 years ago it was a town on its knees – until it decided to take control of its own energy system, something seen as madness at the time. The battle was long and hard, and the energy companies tried so very hard to stop them. The town, however, largely won out and is now burgeoning. It pays half the price for energy than its neighbours, which in turn attracts businesses to the town (in Güssing this has translated into it now being a centre for the manufacture of wood flooring and, er, spaghetti). The town estimates it’s spent €80million on the transition, which includes the cost of numerous failed projects, but the economic dividend is 10 times that, all down to a virtuous circle of money staying in the local economy, stimulating growth that in turn encourages more businesses to make Güssing their home… who employ local people, who have more money to spend… and so on.

Here’s something Trump and Clinton supporters (and those who didn’t vote) can all agree on: cheap, locally owned energy with a stable price boosts opportunity and prosperity. Good news environmentalists, it does it while reducing carbon emissions (Güssing’s have gone down 90%). In short it’s a progressive movement that includes everyone. The economic argument is compelling (as the people who’ve already done it demonstrate), the social argument too. Want to reconnect a divided nation, and unleash the forces of a progressive, liberal society? Then fight for a new energy system that really does give power to the people, that really does allow them to ‘take back control’. It plays very nicely with Trump’s stated agenda to build a better American infrastructure and loosen the control of government — and the fact it’s already happening in towns that voted for him can’t hurt.

Just to be clear, the transition will bring a great deal of pain to the existing energy industry and the families who rely on it paying their wages. It’s a similar pain that millions of US truck drivers will feel at the hands of driverless technology. If you’re a worker in those industries your government and professional bodies should be doing something to help you transition. They probably won’t, I’m afraid to say.

Trump is a natural consequence of the choices our governments have made to ignore a huge swathe of people whom couldn’t be cheaply repurposed into a different role in the global economy evolving around them – governments so busy looking at the dashboard they forgot to look at the road. One answer to this problem is to hand those people the tools to build their own economies. Over the next 20 years the economics of renewables on an Energy Internet will play out. It offers enormous hope and there is very little any political party can, in the long run, do to thwart it. Those that try will find their economies deeply uncompetitive, the national equivalents of Kodak or Blockbuster. We are not going back to film in our cameras, or VHS rentals — and we will come to see the current centralized energy system just as ridiculous in a generation or two from now. Power to the people indeed.

None of this, of course, stops Trump being a sexist, racist bigot — and every progressive everywhere had better stand up to that. It’ll be ugly. But the ugliness has its roots in an economic divide that we can, with technology and understanding, bridge. The existing energy players will resist, they will fight. They will lose, as Big Energy finds itself on the wrong side of its own argument — no longer seen as powering growth, but throttling it. The bankruptcy of Kodak at the hands of the Internet and mobile phones didn’t result in the world taking any fewer pictures and the death of the energy players who fail to adapt to an Internetised energy market won’t see us with a lack of energy.

If you care about democracy, work to democratise energy. And don’t stop until we get there.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/11451/feed/0The long history of “recently discovered” nuclear safety issueshttp://energytransition.de/2016/11/the-long-history-of-recently-discovered-nuclear-safety-issues/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/the-long-history-of-recently-discovered-nuclear-safety-issues/#commentsFri, 25 Nov 2016 09:55:39 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11479Continue reading →]]>This week, German media reported a different angle on the “micro-fissures” now plaguing nuclear reactors in Europe. It seems that the risks have been known for decades. Craig Morris takes a look.

At present, around the third of France’s nuclear fleet is currently off-line as safety experts inspect small cracks in containment vessels. Earlier this year, we learned that improper manufacturing led to these micro-fissures way back in the 1960s—and insiders knew about the problem all along.

The issue flared up in the 2012, when micro-fissures were first (re-)discovered in Belgian reactors, allegedly because of the use of modern inspection technology. But then, a Belgian newspaper pointed out (report in German and in Dutch) that the cracks at these plants had been visible, as it reported at the time, to the naked eye in 1979, when the reactors were not yet even in operation: “In the meantime, there is no doubt that we are talking about cracks,” one politician stated in the Belgian Senate, according to a report from 29 December 1979. (In his defense, the current director of the Belgian Nuclear Control Agency, who oversaw construction of the reactor in question, says he “cannot remember” the discussion.)

Now, Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German) and WDR (see this video in German) reported that nuclear plant operators have not only known about the issue, but have even been compensating for it for decades. At 18 reactors from Belgium to the Czech Republic, France, Finland and Slovakia, the emergency cooling water is preheated to as much as 60°C. As the table below shows, the practice began in Belgium, Finland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in the early 1990s.

European nuclear reactors whose emergency water cooling facilities have been preheated. (Source: WDR)

The problem is that cold cooling water, which generally has a temperature of 5 to 10 °C in Europe, could cause thermal stress on the reactor wall if it is introduced quickly. If the wall already has fissures, the result could be a material failure leading to a leak. If enough of the cooling water escapes through that leak, a meltdown could be the result. In return, however, a higher cooling water temperature also reduces the cooling effect.

Not all of the reactor operators interpret the preheating of emergency cooling water as an indication of an underlying safety issue, however. A spokesperson for Czech utility CEZ told WDR, “That is not a security measure but rather the result of constant improvements,” with the goal of reducing the impact of any use of emergency cooling water “on the service life of the reactor’s containment vessel.” But not all of the companies responded to the press’s requests for statements.

For what it’s worth, the German reporters were unable to discover any such practice in Germany, and the German Environmental Ministry (which handles nuclear safety) stated that emergency cooling water was not preheated at any reactor in Germany “because of the [containment vessels’] current and expected material condition at the end of their service lives,” ending no later than 2022. (In other words, we are shutting them down anyway, so we don’t need to worry about longevity.) However, Wolfgang Renneberg, head of reactor safety at the German Environmental Ministry up to 2009, says the practice is “common in Russia and the US” as well—it simply is not reported.

As Michael Sailer, head of Germany’s Nuclear Waste Management Commission, told the reporters, the steel reactor wall is constantly bombarded with neutrons, becoming brittle in the process—even without any cracks that have been there from the beginning. These containment vessels, properly manufactured (no cracks), were designed to last for 40 years. The average age of a European nuclear reactor is now 32 years. “We are increasingly approaching the material’s limits,” Sailer warns.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/the-long-history-of-recently-discovered-nuclear-safety-issues/feed/5Time to call for decencyhttp://energytransition.de/2016/11/time-to-call-for-decency/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/time-to-call-for-decency/#commentsWed, 23 Nov 2016 17:05:11 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11448Continue reading →]]>Donald Trump will be the next US president. For too long, climate campaigners focused on policies and technical fixes. It’s time to start listening to the people affected again, rather than talking past them. A view from Germany by Craig Morris.

Miners in West Virginia’s Coal Town (1974) ; it’s time to talk to the people affected by climate campaigns (Public Domain)

You probably came here for news about what Trump will do to renewables. Others have written about that in depth, such as plans to cripple the Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change denier Myron Ebell could head the EPA.

Trump could also discontinue federal tax credits for solar and wind; he considers the latter to be ugly and hazardous to human health anyway, though that assessment could change repeatedly for the next four to eight years. (Trump has interests, not values, and therefore changes his mind easily.) But state incentives for renewables have always arguably been more important than federal policy, and they remain in place, so the damage could be limited.

But I’m worried about other things. Trump has pledged to reverse all of Obama’s legacy on the first day. He will pay for his infrastructure plan with a flat tax that will hit single parent households hardest, says Forbes. Nearly two percent of Americans already live on less than two dollars a day in cash; Trump wishes to cut non-cash support for such people, such as food stamps. These people could end up living like wild animals. If in office for eight years, Trump could stock the Supreme Court full of extremists, who need not even be legal experts.

Already, two percent of Americans are dependent upon non-cash support. If that disappears, 5 percent of Americans cold be living only on two dollars a day. Source: Shaefer and Edin, 2013 (PDF).

Little can stop him if Republicans stick together. The pendulum swing of US elections would normally mean that Congress would drift back to the Democrats in the mid-term elections two years from now, but that won’t happen because the Republicans gerrymandered the country based on the 2010 census, putting large Democrat majorities in a small number of constituencies and giving the Republicans small minorities in more areas. For instance, 51% of voters in Pennsylvania supported the Democrats in 2012, but only five of eighteen seats in the state senate went to Democrats. In addition, many states now make it hard for (Democrat-leaning) minorities to vote at all, and felons (disproportionately black, and hence Democrat) often have their voting rights stripped for life.

Furthermore, a constitutional amendment requires approval by both houses in three quarters of US states, so in 38 states. The Republicans now have both houses in 33 states. If they get five more states, they will be able to pass constitutional amendments at will. In just a few years, the Republicans could have the executive (Presidency), the judiciary (Supreme Court), and the legislative (Congress) without needing a popular majority. The system of checks and balances would then be broken, and America would no longer be a democracy by its own definition.

Only one thing is new about Trump

There have been setbacks before; Ronald Reagan, for instance, appointed a dentist as his Energy Secretary (possible a misunderstanding of “drill, baby, drill”) to weaken the Department of Energy. Reagan also had all of the copies destroyed of an Arthur D. Little report recommending solar (except one). And yes, Reagan played the race card in his 1980 campaign: he spoke of states’ rights near the site where three civil rights workers had been killed. That’s so subtle, many of my readers won’t even understand why it’s racist.

But there’s nothing subtle about Trump. His victory has given approval to the worst elements of US society in a way that no previous president has. In this way, his win is unprecedented. The scariest thing about his success is thus his voters: 1% or fewer are vigilantes, while the other 99% or more take his rhetoric for entertaining exaggerations (whereas they held Clinton to be a liar). Both camps are dangerous in different ways.

Trump himself does not have control of what he has unleashed, so American is out of control now. But those 99% are right about one thing: no one cares about them. The government has left them behind, and they resent the elites (including folks like me), who too often think they are stupid rednecks.

In many states, like Pennsylvania, nearly half of those running for office faced no challenger at all. Citizens had no choice half the time, and in most other cases their votes didn’t matter because gerrymandering had already determined the outcome – almost no elections were close. Wouldn’t you want fundamental change, too? Pennsylvania voted Trump.

Last month, I visited Michigan – another Trump state – and realized that, while my home town of New Orleans has been partly rebuilt since Hurricane Katrina, we are going to let towns in the Rust Belt die. The various Buicks my parents owned over the decades were built here. The plant was once the largest in the world. It stretched back as far as the eye can see. Michigan has also been dramatically gerrymandered(Photo: Craig Morris)

Recently, I wrote about how German industry wages come in at around 36 euros an hour, compared to 10 euros in the Czech Republic. Yet, BMW remains committed to Bavaria, though it could cut labor costs by a third if it moved two hours down the road into Czechia. Of course, German industry takes advantage of the EU to relocate, and BMW has production facilities around the world. But (thanks partly to policies that support structural change), but Germany does not face the absolutely shocking level of blight you can see in the “flyover states” – so called because Americans on the eastern and western coasts fly over these areas without visiting them. It is possible to have open borders and strong industry; Germany proves that.

Folks from the flyover states understood the real risk of Trump winning all along, because they saw the desperation first hand. The death rates of middle class white Americans are soaring. Filmmaker Michael Moore, who hails from Michigan, predicted Trump’s victory in July. (Born in southern Louisiana and raised in Mississippi, I warned a few weeks later that Trump could win.) The Trump voters described in accounts from Kentuckyto Louisianaand elsewhere simply don’t believe help can come from the government, so breaking the system can’t hurt. Then at least the elites, who once laughed at them on programs like Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, will finally take them seriously.

Suburban, still affluent (white) Americans also voted for Trump but also (correctly) sense: they are the next to go. Did we really think so many people would take this decline in status and standards of living sitting down? That they would accept being called stupid while they fall behind economically?

Outside the US, the lesson for proponents of renewables seems clear: people have immediate concerns that need addressing. Ask them what they need, and see how your renewable energy project can help. Talk about jobs and giving locals the last word when decisions are made. Let people decide!

Inside the US, the focus right now must be on keeping things civil, lest the country spin out of even Trump’s control. It would be good if blue and red America started talking to each other respectfully.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/time-to-call-for-decency/feed/1Why haven’t Central and Eastern European policy makers embraced the Energiewende?http://energytransition.de/2016/11/why-cee-policy-makers-have-not-embraced-energiewende/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/why-cee-policy-makers-have-not-embraced-energiewende/#commentsTue, 22 Nov 2016 13:00:00 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11404Continue reading →]]>Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have been known for negating most policies which in the short run require some level of altruism and sense of responsibility, from climate change to immigration issues. When Germany embarked upon its revolutionary and transformative energy policy which became known as Energiewende, CEE political leaders were quick to condemn and ridicule the policy. Jan Ondrich explains.

CEE countries are focused on increasing their coal projects, but renewables make more economic sense (photo by Bert Kaufmann, edited, CC BY-SA 2.0)

The Central and Eastern European leader’s reactions could be summarized in the following way:

Germany will soon face blackouts and will pay dearly for our nuclear and coal generated electricity.

German industry will find it impossible to operate with power delivered by intermittent energy sources and will relocate to third countries.

The cost of Energiewende will drive Germany into energy poverty.

Power prices will steeply increase due to shortages of reliable (understand conventional/thermal) supply.

Time has proved them wrong on all points. The German grid is one of most reliable in Europe. According to data published by Agora, a leading German energy focused think tank, German electricity consumers suffered only 10-20 minutes of unplanned interruptions per year per customer. Countries with higher share of conventional and nuclear generators in their mix, such as France and the UK, report statistics of 5 to 6 times more than Germany – that is, 50-60 minutes of unplanned interruptions per customer per year.

Far from leaving Germany, the German industry is still a bedrock of German economic stability. According to World Bank data, the value added of industry as percentage of GDP was 30.3% in 2014, which is by far the largest in Europe compared to 19.6% in France, 22.4% in Spain or 20.9% in the UK.

Power prices have been decreasing over the last 5 years in Germany while installed capacity of intermittent sources increased by over 60% over the same period. In 2016 Germany had 87.4GW of PV, and on- and offshore wind, in 2011 this number was 54.2GW.

The chart below clearly demonstrates that renewable energy does not lead to increases in wholesale power prices. On the contrary, wind and solar power with zero cost of production lead to decrease of wholesale power prices. This effect known as the “merit-order” effect is illustrated by the below chart.

During days with average sunshine and wind, hard-coal fired power plant supplies the last (marginal) megawatt hour of electricity to meet demand and hence sets the market price. The cost of generating that marginal megawatt hour from hard coal was approximately EUR 34/MWh in 2015. In times of large generation from solar and wind sources, power price drops to zero or becomes even negative because generators with close to zero cost of production are able to meet the whole demand. This effect pushed the average annual price down. Wholesale power price in markets dominated by wind and solar is thus lower than it would have been without wind and solar generation.

Many observers from neighboring countries expected Germany to rely on imports to keep the lights on once it starts shutting down nuclear plants. Those expectations also proved wrong so far. Germany has become Europe’s second largest exporter of electricity in 2012, second only to France. Since then German net exports have only increased as the below chart shows.

So, considering that none of the nightmare scenarios feared by CEE politicians played out, why do they still seem to have a problem with Energiewende and can’t come to terms with German energy policy?

We believe it is precisely because of the above described merit-order effect. Utilities in CEE countries tend to be state-owned. Those utilities have a relatively large share of fixed to variable costs, mostly because their generation portfolios are dominated by coal and nuclear. For as long as Germany will be adding more wind and solar generation to its power mix, wholesale prices will remain low. This means that capital intensive projects, such as new nuclear plants in Czech Republic and Hungary, will not be realized. Coal and nuclear power plants need power prices at least two-to-three times higher than the current power prices to be able to recover their investment cost.

Energiewende, one may argue, also contributes to a cleaner and safer fuel mix in neighboring countries as the planned coal and nuclear projects are unlikely to be completed.

Jan Ondřich is a partner in market analysis and advisory firm Candole Partners. He is a regular contributor to this blog.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/why-cee-policy-makers-have-not-embraced-energiewende/feed/6Thorium: a future option for nuclear?http://energytransition.de/2016/11/thorium-a-future-option-for-nuclear/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/thorium-a-future-option-for-nuclear/#commentsMon, 21 Nov 2016 13:00:39 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11355Continue reading →]]>Nuclear reactors running on thorium are widely held to be inherently safer than the awful pressurized-water reactors we have today. So why don’t we have thorium reactors? A new TV documentary also available online answers the question quite well. Craig Morris sums up the evidence.

The documentary in French and German (but available with English subtitles) aired in October on the Franco-German TV station Arte. The film clearly calls for tremendous investments in thorium nuclear, with a prototype reactor costing “a billion euros.” Proponents of the idea quoted in the film put this amount into perspective: Goldman Sachs paid 16 billion dollars in bonuses in 2010 alone. The documentary thus is an ad for thorium and cleverly begins with one in order to appear more objective; a comic strip version of the late nuclear expert Alvin Weinberg tells viewers he is sick of ads and asks whether we are ready to take a deep dive into the technology.

The documentary’s sales pitch is convincing, and I do recommend the movie to anyone who wishes to know what thorium nuclear reactors are (or would be) and why we don’t have them. The benefits are clearly explained:

Radioactive waste would be reduced by around 80%, much of which would only have a half-life of seven years.

During operation, the reactors would probably be inherently safe. The problem with the reactors we currently have is that they need cooling even when they are shut down or break, as happened in Fukushima. When a thorium reactor cooled with molten salt has an emergency shutdown, the liquid salt can be dumped into a reservoir under the reactor, where it would quickly cool down enough to harden so that leaks would not even be a problem.

So why don’t we have such reactors? The reason given in the film is the one we also give in our book, Energy Democracy, in telling the history of nuclear in Germany. Basically, the first nuclear reactors were actually built to produce material for nuclear weapons. The nuclear power plants we have today were derived from this design. In fact, the one that blew up in Chernobyl was technically a military reactor repurposed for power production.

Once this reactor type had become the utility favorite, other competing designs were discouraged. Utilities and the government did not want potentially safer reactors to succeed, lest the public demand the immediate shutdown of the reactors already built, which have the worst possible design of all the options originally on the table.

The Germans also played around with thorium. Strangely, the documentary does not tell the story of Germany’s thorium reactor in Hamm from the 1980s, probably because it is not exactly the kind proposed (for instance, the German one used helium, not molten salt, for cooling). But Germany also had a reactor with sodium as the coolant in Kalkar.

The thorium reactor ran for just over a year and was closed because of rising costs (basically, it broke). The other was also closed based on cost, but it never had time to break. With the molten sodium flowing through the cooling system and the reactor ready to be loaded with fuel rods, the state government refused to give the go-ahead, and the plant operator eventually gave up because keeping the sodium heated up as a liquid was costing millions of deutsche marks every day.

Do either of these German examples provide any lessons?

The Chinese have also tried their hand at the kind of thorium reactor described in the movie, and they could not quite get the technology to work either. But the problems could be manageable; the reactor design does not pose any obstacles that might not be solved through trial and error. The big one – and the one that plagued the Chinese – is corrosion from the molten salt. But this challenge is well understood today and already managed in other industry facilities, including concentrated solar power plants with molten salt storage. For what it’s worth, the IAEA claims that “no technological breakthroughs are required” for the corrosion issue (PDF).

So should we go ahead with thorium? As the Chinese and German examples show, more than one prototype will be needed. If each one comes at a price tag of 1 billion euros, we are talking about a lot of money. Maybe Goldman Sachs could pay for all of this out of the kitty, but that doesn’t mean thorium is the best option.

Even if they work as touted, thorium reactors would still produce some nuclear waste – and frankly, it’s not completely certain they would be inherently safe if there were an accident. Finding that out would cost billions. By the time we figured that out, the falling cost of solar + wind + storage would, no doubt, make thorium uninteresting. And we already know for certain that renewables are inherently safe.

]]>http://energytransition.de/2016/11/thorium-a-future-option-for-nuclear/feed/9India’s solar power set to outshine coalhttp://energytransition.de/2016/11/indias-solar-power-set-to-outshine-coal/
http://energytransition.de/2016/11/indias-solar-power-set-to-outshine-coal/#commentsThu, 17 Nov 2016 13:00:45 +0000http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11312Continue reading →]]>Solar power in India will be cheaper than imported coal by 2020, but replacing the subcontinent’s fossil fuels with renewable energy is an enormous task. Henner Weithöner explains the potential of a solar takeover.

India wants to provide its entire population with electricity and lift millions out of poverty, but in order to prevent the world overheating it also needs to switch away from fossil fuels.

Although India is blessed with ample sunshine and wind, its main source of energy is coal, followed by oil and gas. Together, they provide around 90% of the total energy demand of the subcontinent – India, Pakistan and Bangladesh – with coal enjoying the highest share, at more than 70%.

The 2016 BP Energy Outlook report assumes that India will depend increasingly on imports for its energy. Domestic production can be increased, but the increase will be overtaken by growing demand. BP says that by 2035 gas imports to India will rise by 573%, oil imports by 169% and coal by 85%.

Its conclusion is based on what is called the levelised cost of energy (LCOE): a way of comparing different methods of electricity generation, using the average total cost of building and operating a power plant, divided by its total lifetime energy output.

Bloomberg says the LCOE for photovoltaic systems is about US$ 0.10 per solar kilowatt hour, compared with a current levelised cost for coal in Asia of about US$ 0.07.

Even if coal prices remain steady, which it thinks is unlikely, it believes that the continuing fall in PV prices means that solar energy will be more economic than coal by 2020. Only 10 years ago, solar generation was more than three times the price of coal.

One of the pioneering solar manufacturers, Tata Power Solar, estimates that the potential for solar in India lies at about 130 gigawatts by 2025 (one GW is enough to power around 200,000 typical US homes).

“This would generate more than 675,000 jobs in the Indian solar industry,” says Tata Power Solar’s former CEO, Ajay Goel, now president of solar and chief of new businesses at New Delhi-based ReNew Power . “Especially for the 400 million Indians who have no access to electricity, solar power would mean access to clean and affordable energy.”

Solar Benefits

After years of standstill on the subcontinent, India seems to be discovering the benefits of solar energy. So the government has recently updated its National Solar Mission target: now it wants to achieve 175GW of renewable power, which includes 100GW of solar power by 2022.

To meet these goals, India will need to increase the pace of its renewable energy capacity addition sevenfold, from an average 3GW per year to at least 20GW per year. Since 2007, the country has averaged only 15GW of new power capacity each year from all technologies.

Bloomberg believes that these targets are difficult to achieve in the given timeframe and will require a serious overhaul of the power infrastructure, as well as new incentives to drive investment.

Uncertainty over the pace at which new large dams or nuclear plants can be built means there is a strong reliance on solar and wind power. The IEA says India has high potential and equally high ambition in these areas to deliver on the pledge to build up a 40% share of non-fossil-fuel capacity in the power sector by 2030.

It believes that 340GW of new wind and solar projects, as well as manufacturing and installation capabilities, can be created by 2040 with strong policy support and declining costs.

According to this scenario, the IEA says, the share of coal in the power generation mix falls from 75% to less than 60%, but coal-fired power still meets half of the increase in power generation.

But both the IEA and Bloomberg warn that inadequate transmission infrastructure, open access issues, the poor financial health of distribution companies and a difficult law-making process within the power sector will be the major issues blocking a flow of investment and the proper growth of renewable energy.

So it remains to be seen whether India will put its ambitious plans into practice. The solar potential is obviously there, and at a competitive price. Now people have to start harvesting energy from the sun.

Henner Weithöner is a freelance journalist based in Berlin. Specialized in Environmental Reporting and Renewable Energy he conducted media trainings and workshops in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.